To the growing list of Barack Obamas tactical moves to the right on terrorist wiretapping, gun control, trade, Iraq and the like we can now add abortion as well. In this case as in the others, he has moved in what would be the right direction on the substance, but in a way that strongly suggests he is trying to play voters for fools.

In an interview with the Christian magazine Relevant, Obama says he doesnt believe that mental distress should qualify as a health exception for late-term abortions. He says:

I have repeatedly said that I think its entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I dont think that mental distress qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

This view would put Obama to the right of Supreme Court jurisprudence on abortion reaching back to the Doe v. Bolton decision that accompanied Roe, and in direct conflict with all the justices he says he admires and with the reigning orthodoxy of the pro-choice movementincluding the so-called Freedom of Choice Act, of which Obama is a co-sponsor and which he told a Planned Parenthood audience last July he would make a top priority as president (heres a transcript and a video, Obama says the first thing Id do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.)

After this startling reversal drew some attention over the weekend, Obama offered this clarification to a group of reporters:

Reporter: You said that mental distress shouldn't be a reason for late-term abortion?

Obama: My only point is this  historically I have been a strong believer in a women's right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family. And it is ..I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions. In the past there has been some fear on the part of people who, not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle, that that means that if a woman just doesn't feel good then that is an exception. That's never been the case. I don't think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, it can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that's important to emphasize and understand.

Clear as mud. Even after this second go, Obama is still clearly at odds with where he was during the primaries and before, with the bill he has championed, with the pro-choice groups who have endorsed him, and with the Supreme Court justices he has said would be his model for future appointments.

As with his other recent refinements, his substantive move here would certainly be a welcome one, even an important one from such a prominent Democrat, if there were any reason at all to believe him. But given how quickly and seamlessly he has appeared to switch positions on so many prominent issues in the last few weeks, and how he has tried to present each new position as what he has always believed (rather than, in this case for instance, make a point of having come to disagree with at least the most extreme views of the abortion lobby) it is hard to imagine that either side on any of these issues finds much comfort in these increasingly peculiar neck-snapping reversals.

Despite the evident dishonesty of these moves, though, those of us with whom Obama is suddenly discovering so many points of agreement should certainly make the most of his awkward dance. Will other prominent Democrats agree with their candidate's newly discovered views? If not, why not?

“Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions”. What about “Due Process Rights for the ‘Unborn’??”

For my savior's and our nation's sake (not being blasphemous-just using this for emphasis ;)), we give due process rights to convicted CRIMINALS should unborn American citizens be give the same ~rights~ (if not better) before we take away their rights to live (et all..)!? PRO ABORTIONISTS (Murder Enablers) are SO INCONSISTENT!

3
posted on 07/06/2008 6:19:27 PM PDT
by JSDude1
(It;s only a protest vote if your political worldview is Republican 1st, conservative 2nd-pissant)

Barack Hussein Obama is a charlatan, a militant anti-American, and an abject marxist.

His willful associations of long standing and his repeated far-left positions over years mark him for who he is...not what he is now saying to try and address his "problems" with voters in an effort to get their vote so that he can then inact and move forward with that long standing agenda.

I have repeatedly said that I think its entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother.

This man is a sick liar. How can a man who has fought to protect infanticide even say that with a straight face?

7
posted on 07/06/2008 6:42:01 PM PDT
by Always Right
(Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)

May 18, 2008: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us. ...they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. I mean, if Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance.

May 20, 2008: Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the regions and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust.

"Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called 'too close to infanticide.' Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed he would not want his daughters to be 'punished with a baby' because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life."http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/caseys_endorsement_lacks_fathe.html

Yup. The last two elections have been so close that he knows he only has to confuse a few dumb “independents” and “swing voters” to win. He doesn’t really expect to win the evangelical vote, for example, but just to peel enough away from the Republicans to change the outcome. He also needs the idiot Liberaltarians to throw their votes away.

but in a way that strongly suggests he is trying to play voters for fools.

Well - the fact of the matter - a lot of voters ARE fools. Many will fall for his lies, no matter how easy they are to show.

Of course - will there be any Republican slam on this issue (or any of the others that Obama is faking or lying about)? I seriously doubt it. McCain is more interested in keeping on good relations with his close friends across the isle to "offend" anyone.

It would be so simple to choke Obama with the facts - his voting record. Obama is even more evil than Planned Parenthood.... he loves blood.

If this goes the way I think it will, he’ll offer up a mealy-mouthed defense designed to offer a shadow of a doubt regarding his stand on abortion (why he keeps thinking that he can use a standard of proof more suited to a murder trial than a race for the highest office in the land is beyond me). Then surrogates (probably connected with his campaign) will start sliming McCain on issues deemed to be a deal breaker for evangelicals. Personally, I don’t think evangelicals will fall for it because as a group they hate liars and they despise equivication, to say nothing of being, well, um, conservative. He’s not going to try to do this legitimately, that’s for sure!

People who support Obama are truly myopic. Even 10 years ago someone like Obama would have been ran out on a rail.

What angers me is how the GOP has treated Obama with kid gloves. Someone prominent needs to step up and give a speech denouncing Obama's policies and proposals. Too bad Helms passed away, he would have surely shredded this clown.

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, its never been more important to protect a womans right to choose....Throughout my career, Ive been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

~~~ Senator Barack Obama

Barack Obama is a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a bill that would nullify virtually all federal and state limitations on abortion, including the types now permitted by the Supreme Court, such as parental notification laws and waiting periods. It would also make partial-birth abortion legal again.

While in the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama voted against legislation that prohibited taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortion. His campaign has stated that he does not support the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion through the Medicaid program.

Barack Obama voted to block a bill to require an abortionist to notify a parent before performing an abortion on a minor who lives in another state.

Barack Obama voted against an amendment to allow states to provide federally subsidized health care insurance for an unborn child (within the SCHIP program). The amendment would have written explicit language into the SCHIP statute to guarantee that a covered child includes, at the option of a State, an unborn child. The amendment further defined unborn child as a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

Barack Obama sharply criticized the Supreme Court for its 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. He said, I strongly disagree with todays Supreme Court ruling...I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a womans right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.

While a member of the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama opposed the proposed Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). The measure was very similar to the federal BAIPA, which President Bush signed into law in 2002. Obama opposed the legislation for three straight legislative sessions and twice spoke against the bill on the Senate floor. He voted against the bill twice in committee and once on the Senate floor. Both laws were intended to provide protection for babies who survived abortions equal to protection received by babies who are spontaneously born prematurely.

Since his election to the Senate in 2004, Barack Obama has compiled a 0% voting record on prolife issues scored by the National Right to Life Committee. By contrast, he has a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.